August 14, 2008, 7:45 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Public Transportation and Energy Policy," August 11, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Anonymous Electronic Speech," August 10, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
And see, "500+ Posts Index"
"It Never Died," Said He
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he,
"I never died" said he.
"Joe Hill," and see Wikipedia, "Joe Hill," for "the rest of the story."
Joe Hill was killed by firing squad, and yet lives on in the passions and songs of labor activists.
Earthpark -- aka "The Iowa Child Project," "Coralville, Iowa, Rain Forest," "Iowa Environmental/Education Project," "Iowa Environmental Project," and simply "The Environmental Project" -- an unfunded proposal for an indoor rain forest attraction in Iowa, was pitched to, and turned down by (sometimes more than once) Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Des Moines, Dubuque, Grinnell, Iowa City, Riverside, and Tiffin. Eventually landing somewhere under a tulip bed in Pella, now even Pella's "city officials . . . have not heard from Earthpark's representatives for several months [and have] put no money toward the project."
Notwithstanding this decade-long history that would have been at least discouraging to mere mortals, and thought to have been equally dead from the financial equivalent of a firing squad (its inability to match a $50 million earmark from Senator Chuck Grassley), Earthpark appears to be as alive as Joe Hill in the passions of its cheerleaders.
The Gazette brings us this odd "man bites rain forest" story in this morning's paper. Gregg Hennigan, "Vanishing Rain Forest; To Keep the Earthpark Dream Alive, Backers Would Consider Leaving Iowa," The Gazette, August 14, 2008, p. A1 (and source of the quote, above).
Although Hennigan quotes Earthpark CEO David Oman as acknowledging that he, financial backer Ted Townsend, and their Earthpark board are in a "pretty quiet phase" that has "no timetable to speak of," they remain in existence and "have not given up on the project."
Indeed, he quotes board member Linda Neuman as saying, "I think everyone on the board just thinks it's a terrific project and it's kind of a shame that it hasn't gotten legs here in Iowa." He indicates she also believes that "it's possible Earthpark could move to a different state" and that "the board has not discussed abandoning the project."
Although I'm described in Hennigan's story as a "critic" of the project -- and I can understand how one might get that impression -- I have thought of my role as more one of asking questions, and attempting to extract through the promoters' firewall lacking in transparency what I thought to be basic information about their proposal, than "criticism" as such. In fact, it's very hard to be either critical or supportive of anything without knowing what "it" is. As one critic put it, "It's a floor wax; it's a desert topping; it's whatever they want it to be."
I have written at great -- some might say excessive -- length about "Iowa Child/Earthpark" over the years. See the Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark," and its links to some 30 published and unpublished pieces of mine, along with 100s of media stories, reports, and comments of others. Needless to say, I'm not about to try to summarize all of that material in this little blog entry.
The project as been besieged with problems involving virtually all the fundamentals of such an undertaking.
* From the time Ted Townsend first thought of the idea (and pledged $10 million of his own money to it) until today there has been an ongoing shift in focus (e.g., tourist attraction, national research center, school, IMAX theater, teacher training facility, indoor rain forest camp ground, with animals, without animals) -- so it's been hard to know at any given point in time just exactly what they are talking about.
* Without a clear focus and project design it has been impossible to come up with a meaningful, realistic business plan (i.e., plans for coming up with the grants to sustain a national research facility are very different from realistic plans for raising enough admission income from visitors to sustain the operation of a "tourist attraction").
* Notwithstanding their own consultants' advice that they needed to have "the world's largest" whatever to have a prayer of getting enough visitors -- roughly a $300-350 million project -- as the focus and project shifted over time so did the construction budget, to $225, then $180, and now apparently $140 million, thereby making the possibility of financial viability ever less likely.
* The projected operating costs would have required that every Iowa man, woman and child -- from newborn babe to the terminally ill -- pay full fare at the gate at least once every two years for the entirety of their lives. To expect every Iowan to visit even once is a bit optimistic; to expect them to return with the regularity of migrating birds seemed to most economists to be wildly unrealistic.
Even though continuing operating costs were the most serious problem, most observers ignored it. They chose to focus on construction costs instead.
* But in fact the failure to raise those costs told an even more dramatic story. Notwithstanding the involvment of one former (and very popular) Iowa governor, Bob Ray, as board chair, another candidate for governor (David Oman), the Chair of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (Chuck Grassley), prestigeous board members and consultants, the backing of one of Iowa's wealthiest business persons (Ted Townsend), access to the nation's Republican Party leadership, the CEOs of the nation's largest corporations and foundations, not to mention the Iowa business community, and widespread support from the state's newspapers and elected officials -- they have been unable to obtain one bankable dime, from anybody, during the past ten years!
The question raised by Gregg Hennigan's story is: "OK, so they forfeited the $50 million Grassley grant; but has anything changed during the past year or so to suggest improvement on any of these fronts?" And the answer, sadly (or happily, depending on one's perspective) must be, "No" -- or at least not on the basis of anything the promoters have revealed to us during the interim.
Something I have found as mysterious as it has been disappointing during this past decade has been the seeming willingness, indeed enthusiasm, of elected officials and editorial writers to sing the praises of Iowa Child/Earthpark over the years as "a good idea," worthy of taxpayers' money, without addressing the underlying issues I've briefly noted above.
Any project must first pass "the laugh test" (something Earthpark failed to do, from Dave Barry's columns, through editorial cartoons, to "West Wing," to Senator John McCain and Governor Chet Culver). There needs to be an initial reaction to "the idea" -- whether "Wow, that's a great idea!" or "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of." And I can understand how some might think an indoor rain forest to be "a good idea."
But it is totally irresponsible -- in my opinion -- for editorial writers and public officials to then leap to the conclusion that we ought to execute every "good idea" without even bothering to mention (let alone seeming to care about) the need for precise planning and focus, physical and technological feasability, a rational business plan, construction funds in hand at the outset, and reasonable prospects for perpetual funding of operations.
A zoo exhibit of pigs with the ability to fly would no doubt attract a goodly number of tourists. It is, in that sense, "a good idea." But it would be irresponsible to put a $50 million earmark of federal taxpayers' money into the project without, first, working through some of the rather obvious initial challenges; namely, where to find, or how to breed, such pigs.
Moreover, the economic picture has not been improving for attractions of this kind anywhere in the U.S. See, e.g., Tom Barton, "Living History Farms sells 40 acres to developer," Des Moines Register, August 13, 2008; Living History Farms, "About Living History Farms" ("In 1999, attendance reached 110,092 museum visitors"); David A. Fahrenthold, "Living-History Museums Struggle to Draw Visitors; Creativity Drives Changes in Hunt for Attendance," Washington Post, December 25, 2005, p. A3; Sonja Barisic, "A 'Revolutionary' idea to lure tourists," Associated Press/Deseret News, April 9, 2006 ("Colonial Williamsburg officials have blamed declining attendance in part on less focus on Colonial history in schools. Annual paid attendance fell from about 1.2 million in 1988 to 710,457 in 2005."); Bruce Courson, "Why Rural Museums Are Becoming Ancient History," Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2005, 12:01 a.m. EST ("It is a story increasingly common for rural Massachusetts museums within a day's drive of major metropolitan areas. Many have current paid attendance numbers that are nearing 50% of what they were three decades ago.")
I suspect a skeleton of Earthpark will continue as long as Ted Townsend continues to pay David Oman his generous salary, expenses and benefits. But surely at some point Townsend will come to see that he's getting far more return on his money from his "Great Ape Trust" -- a project that's in place, really does have some potential, and could use more of the financial support now going to Earthpark -- than trying to tether to Planet Earth his beautiful dream of a rain forest in a greenhouse.
# # #
July 10, 2008, 5:15 p.m.
Australia's Latest Wilderness Area
What took 10 years for a handful of dedicated Iowans -- and then was never completed -- the Australians have accomplished in 24 hours: a rain forest inside, of all places, the Sydney Opera House.
I've been there. It's one of the world's great architectural accomplishments -- as well as a great music hall -- and I've got to admit it just would never have occurred to me to take out all the seats and replace them with 1000 trees.
I guess I just don't have the very well developed creative artistic ability to come up with something like that.
French artist Pierre Huyghe having created this work of art in 24 hours, scheduled it for no more than a 24-hour showing. So, sorry, you've already missed it.
Maybe that's what we should have gone for. A 24-hour rain forest. Oh, well, I guess the Aussies beat us to it again. Now we're going to have to settle for "The Stories Project."
Here's the story: Alex Lalak, "Opera House concert hall now forest of trees for Biennale," Daily Telegraph, July 10, 2008, 12:00 a.m. -- and here's the story of the Iowa rain forest.
Some challenge the notion that "Foster's is Australian for beer."
But now no one can challenge that "Opera House" is Australian for "rain forest."
# # #
December 22, 2007, 5:30 a.m.
Another addition to Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Resources and Updates," December 18-20, 2007
Is there still a possibility that -- notwithstanding Congress' removal of the $50 million earmark matching grant Senator Grassley provided his Earthpark friends -- that they could still get the money?
As reported in the blog entry linked above, Congress stripped the grant from the omnibus budget bill. But two possibilities for funding remained: (1) That the DOE would grant the money before the president signed the bill, and (2) that President Bush would not get it signed by Friday.
So what's happened during the last 24 hours? It's not clear -- at least not to me. And here are two reasons why.
(1) The AP had a story about the $555 billion bill the Washington Post ran yesterday that concludes, "The provisions [for Pakistan aid] were part of a $555 billion spending bill Congress passed Wednesday . . .. President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law." AP, "White House Expresses Confidence Over Pakistan Aid," Washington Post, December 21, 2007, p. A17.
What's troublesome about that story? A story running Friday morning, saying the president "is expected to sign" is a long way from "the president signed Friday." And I haven't seen the latter anywhere.
(2) The Gazette carries a story this morning (no byline; dateline Washington) with the headline, "Rain Forest Review Continues; Congress Voted This Week to Withdraw Earthpark Funding," The Gazette, December 22, 2007, p. B9. (And see, "Earthpark Application Review Not Yet Complete," The Gazette Online, December 21, 2007, 5:12 p.m.)
It says, in part,
The U.S. Energy Department on Friday did not complete reviewing an application that could have helped Earthpark receive a $48.3 million federal grant, even though Congress voted this week to withdraw the funds. ["Even though"? What's the logical nexus between those two clauses?]
Department spokesman Brian Quirke said the review will not be completed before Wednesday.
. . .
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, secured federal funds for the project, slated for Pella, in 2003. In 2005, he put a hold on the grant, which originally totaled $50 million, until Earthpark officials could show they had raised an equal amount from private sources. That documentation is what’s now under review."
What are we to make of this?
(a) Does it mean that there was, in fact, a pre-condition for the removal of the funds: That the president sign the bill by Friday; that he failed to do so; and therefore the money is still, potentially, available?
(b) Clearly, the "documentation" from Earthpark remains a "public record" that should have been made available to the public and media regardless of what the facts may be.
(c) But why does DOE "now" still have that documentation "under review" -- unless there is the possibility of a grant? Why would DOE continue to invest human resources into reviewing a grant that Congress has forbidden the Department to make, and the Department does not intend to make?
I'll be asking Brian Quirke these questions in my effort to seek clarification, but meanwhile confusion reigns. Is there still a chance they'll soon be singing "Here Comes Santa Claus" in Pella?
Perry Beeman, "Official: No Plans to Fund Earthpark," Des Moines Register, December 22, 2007, provides the most clarification:
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., had said the department could still issue the grant if it did so before President Bush signs the bill, which was expected as early as Friday.
"We don't plan an announcement today," Quirke said. "We don't plan an Earthpark announcement anytime soon."
Asked if the grant is officially dead, with the president expected to make it final, Quirke said "If the grant is rescinded, we won't have any money to grant."
What this sounds like is that (1) the president has not yet signed the appropriations bill, but (2) until he does, the DOE remains athorized to give Oman the $50 million, and (3) is therefore obliged to continue its review of the documentation, although (4) (while not stated in so many words) is disinclined to make an award knowing that Congress has ordered it not to, because (5) apparently there was no provision in the bill requiring the president to sign it by Friday in order to strip the $50 million; it will be removed whenever he does sign the bill.
In short, the rainforest may be on life support, but I haven't yet seen solid evidence anyone's actually pulled the plug.
# # #
December 18, 2007, 3:20 p.m.; December 19, 2007, 12:15 p.m.; December 20, 2007, 6:00 a.m.; December 22, 2007, 7:00 a.m.
And see, Nicholas Johnson, "Rainforest: Here Comes Santa Claus? [Dec. 22]," December 22, 2007, for additional, puzzling update.
EXTRA! UPDATE! [Dec. 19, 12:30 p.m.; Dec. 20, 6:00 a.m.] Think Earthpark's finished? As Mark Twain once said during the early years of this project, "Rumors of Earthpark's death have been greatly exaggerated. Keep the champagne corked until further notice."
"Grassley said in a statement that the grant still could go through if the U.S. Department of Energy rules by Friday -- the day President Bush is expected to sign the budget bill -- that Earthpark has pledges to match the grant as required.
'Earthpark could bring unique opportunities to Iowa – not just environmental or energy related -- but also long lasting benefits to Iowa’s economy and education system,' Grassley said in a statement."
. . .
Executive director David Oman said the Earthpark board will have to reassess finances at its meeting in January. However, he said, Earthpark has been in touch with potential cash sources from the United States, and one in Europe. He declined to name them or to lay out Earthpark’s latest financial plans.
Said Oman: “Yes, I would expect that we would continue.”
The AP reports that budget bills passed by both House and Senate strip the $50 million matching grant opportunity for Earthpark, if (1) the President signs the bill by Friday (Dec. 21) and (2) the DOE does not finish its staff work, and award the grant, prior to Friday. So stay tuned.
"Congress Kills Earthpark Grant," Des Moines Register, December 19, 2007.
And see, Perry Beeman, "U.S. Earthpark Grant All But Dead," Des Moines Register, December 20, 2007; Gregg Hennigan, "Earthpark funding cut irks Iowa leaders," Gazette Online, December 19, 2007, Updated 6:43 p.m. (and in hard copy edition as Gregg Hennigan, "Congress rains on Earthpark; Bill rescinds $48.3 million in key funding; chances of restoring money slim to none," The Gazette, December 20, 2007, p. A1).
Note to DOE: Please disregard what I've written below about the desirability of acting quickly on this application.
# # #
Today's [Dec. 18] entry is a source of references as well as commentary.
Table of Contents
Commentary
Links to Prior Nicholas Johnson Earthpark Blog Entries
Links to State29 Earthpork Blog Entries
Acts of Congress (Senator Grassley) Authorizing Federal Expenditure
Code of Federal Regulations Re: Department of Energy Process
Senator Grassley Earthpark Letter to Constituent
Exchange of Emails between Nicholas Johnson and DOE's Brian Quirke
Commentary
David Letterman once had a long-running routine in which he was waiting for Oprah to invite him to be a guest on her show. Every night he'd call his main office to ask if she'd called that day and then dutifully enter in his log, "Oprah didn't call again today."
It was all reminiscent of the line from Randy Travis' song, "Since my phone still ain't ringing I assume it still ain't you." Randy Travis, "Is It Still Over?"
So it has been with the U.S. Department of Energy these days insofar as releasing Earthpark's application for $50 million is concerned.
Earthpark's David Oman apparently timely filed some sort of document with the Department (charged with administering Senator Grassley's generous $50 million earmark to Oman) on December 1. To get the money Grassley subsequently provided that Oman must match it. The document supposedly shows how Oman has defined a "match" -- and the Department now has to rule on whether it complies with the terms of the grant and other federal law.
Notwithstanding the fact this is a "public record," a document to which the public and the media have a legally granted right of access, it is being withheld by all who have copies: Oman, Grassley, and the DOE. Why?
The AP reported a DOE spokesperson said the agency would have the matter decided "a couple of days" after December 1. (That spokesperson tells me he really said "several days," but acknowledges that now, nearly three weeks later, qualifies as neither "a couple" or "several.") Why the delay? According to the legislation authorizing Grassley's earmark, to get the money Oman would have to have $48 (or $50) million "secured" by December 1 or the grant would revert to the U.S. Treasury. Is that so difficult to ascertain? It would seem to me he either had it, or he didn't, on December 1. Hopefully, he's not being permitted to "amend" his documentation.
Or is it that Senator Santa and the DOE think they can sneak $50 million into Iowa past the media and concerned citizens while everyone's distracted sometime around Christmas, New Year's, or the January 3 Iowa caucus without anybody noticing -- or reporting? If so (1) they don't need to be concerned, since the Iowa media seems determined to avoid this major national story and Iowa embarrassment, and (2) Senator Santa is going to need a bigger tractor than the one he used in his campaign commercials to mow his own lawn to bring a sleigh with that much money across our snow-covered corn fields.
This project has been dogged with public doubts since its inception, some of which I'll set forth in a moment. Those concerns have only increased over time. Putting all that aside, whatever may have been the arguments in favor of making a federal investment in the project some years ago, to put $50 million of federal taxpayers' money into the project now -- knowing what we now know -- clearly will be nothing but $50 million of the kind of government waste Senator Grassley has endeavored to make a reputation for fighting rather than funding.
Assume we make a gift to Oman of the $2 million he took from the $50 million fund before the match requirement was in place. Assume he now has $48 million cash in the bank -- a highly unlikely prospect, given that, the last we heard the project has been unable to raise a single dime during the last ten years! Even if he did have the $48 million cash on hand that, plus the $48 million cash match, would mean he'd have $96 million. Where is the additional $44-$54 million to come from, given this decade-long failure at fund raising?
The project was originally proposed to be a $300 million venture. Its own consultants have said it would not have a prayer of financial sustainability if it were to be reduced below $225 million -- and that was a few years ago (before construction costs increased), and when it was proposed to be located along an Interstate highway (or possibly even at the intersection of two). Now they're talking $140 million in a town of about 10,000 souls at a location far away from any major highway.
To give $50 million of taxpayers' money to such a project, knowing that -- best case -- it will require perpetual taxpayer subsidy to keep the doors open, and even then be a financial disaster is irresponsible if not criminal. Worst case it will be $50 million entirely wasted, as the project will never be built, or will be built only to promptly close.
Links to Prior Nicholas Johnson Earthpark Blog Entries
Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark's Week-Long Wake," November 26-December 7, 2007.
Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark: Grassley's the Story," December 7, 2007
Nicholas Johnson, "Maybe It's Only Human/Earthpark" in "To Err is Human, To Keep it Secret Even More So," December 14, 2007
and, of course, the monster Web site for Earthpark-Iowa Environmental Project-Iowa Child at http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild.
Links to State29 Earthpork Blog Entries
State29, "Earthpark Rainforest: Preferring Secrecy To Openness," December 16, 2007
State29, "Exposing Chuck Grassley For The Fraud That He Really Is," December 12, 2007
State29, "Earthpark's Grant Application: More Than $100 To Copy," December 11, 2007
State29, "The Earthpark Roadmap," December 7, 2007
State29, "Grassley Finally Comments On Earthpark," December 6, 2007
State29, "Earthpark: Bloggers Doing The Jobs That The Media Won't," December 6, 2007
State29, "Blogger Malpractice?" December 5, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: Oh, The Irony," December 5, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: Keeping The Boondoggle Boondoggling," December 4, 2007
State29, "Earthpork: The Day After The Deadline," December 2, 2007 (updated, and thoughtfully providing local media with 14 categories of questions in case any ever choose to write about the matter)
Acts of Congress (Senator Grassley) Authorizing Federal Expenditure
(1) The language of the original earmark created by Senator Chuck Grassley in 2004 provided, in its entirety:
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Science. For an additional amount for "Science", $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, is provided for the Coralville, Iowa, project, which is to utilize alternative renewable energy sources."
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Title V, Div. H, §130, 118 Stat.3, 441 (2004).
This was one sweet deal: "$50,000,000 available until expended"! No conditions. No legislative requirements regarding process or oversight.
(2) It was subsequently revised to provide:
"Section 130 of division H (Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-199, is hereby amended by striking "is provided for the Coralville, Iowa, project" and all that follows and inserting: "is provided for the Iowa Environmental and Education project to be located in Iowa. No further funds may be disbursed by the Department of Energy until a one hundred percent non-Federal cash and in-kind match of the appropriated Federal funds has been secured for the project by the non-Federal project sponsor: Provided, That the match shall exclude land donations: Provided further, That if the match is not secured by the non-Federal project [**2282] sponsor by December 1, 2007, the remaining Federal funds shall cease to be available for the Iowa Environmental and Education project."
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, §315, 119 Stat. 2247, 2281 (2005).
Code of Federal Regulations Re: Department of Energy Process
The Department of Energy, Chicago office (which has the action on this one), is governed by the terms of Grassley's earmark and also the Department's own regulations involving grants. After being announced in a daily federal publication called the Federal Register they are ultimately arranged and bound in a multi-volume collection of all agencies' regulations called the Code of Federal Regulations. DOE regulations are in Title 10 of the CFR.
The relevant regulations regarding the rain forest project are called the Federal Assistance Rules, found in Part 600 of Title 10, especially (according to the DOE's Brian Quirke) sections 600.123 (Subpart B, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-profit Organizations," "Cost Sharing or Matching"), 600.224 ("Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," "Matching or Sharing"), and 600.313 (Subpart D, "Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with For-Profit Organizations," "Cost Sharing or Matching").
(Although it would seem to me from the subpart titles that only Subpart B (non-profits) would be relevant to the rain forest project. In any event, all are somewhat repetitive. They require, in general, that in-kind contributions are to be valued at reasonable, local market rates.)
Given the length of these provisions, I will not reproduce them here in full. They may be found on the Internet, however, at the Government Printing Office site with this URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/10cfr600_07.html.
Senator Grassley's Earthpark Letter to Constituent
(Source: Letter from a reader reproduced in State29, "Exposing Chuck Grassley For The Fraud That He Really Is," December 12, 2007.)
Thank you for expressing your concerns about Earthpark, the rain forest project to be located in Pella, Iowa. I am glad to have this opportunity to respond.
While the project was originally designed to be constructed in Coralville, the project leaders announced on September 28 that the project would be built in Pella. It will be relocated to a proposed residential, recreational and retail resort to be built on 240 acres on the southeastern shore of Lake Red Rock. It will be surrounded by 50,000 acres of natural habitat.
Federal funds for the rain forest project were included in the fiscal year 2004 spending bill through the Department of Energy. The $50 million federal appropriation only pays for part of the project, which has a total estimated cost of $150 to $200 million.
In November of 2005, I froze and put restrictions on the $50 million appropriation. My legislation requires non-federal dollars to be raised before additional federal tax dollars are spent. My measure also says that non-federal money must be secured by December of 2007 or the remainder of the federal funding will be reclaimed. Earthpark must submit the details of its proposal, including information on contributions they have received, to the Department of Energy by December 1. The Department of Energy will then determine if Earthpark has met the requirements specified in receiving the funds.
I appreciate your suggestion to require certain documents from the project leaders before unfreezing the federal funds. I will do just that an plan to study their match proposal carefully.
I want this project to succeed because it's a great opportunity for Iowans. Not only does the rain forest project show great promise for research and education, but it will also help the tourism industry in Iowa. Construction of this project will ultimately help Iowa build a better workforce, and provide more educational opportunities for teachers and students.
I understand the concerns that some Iowans have expressed about the amount of federal funds that we have appropriated for this project. Please know that during my time in Washington, I have worked for responsible government spending and to hold Congress accountable for your tax dollars. I will hold true to this commitment as I continue to work in the US Senate.
Again, I am glad to know your thoughts on this project. I always welcome your views, and urge you to stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Comment: That he could write that sixth paragraph indicates to me that he either doesn't know the past history and current set of proposals regarding this project or is willing to misrepresent what he does (or should) know. Whatever one might have been excused for thinking or saying about this project five or ten years ago, so much more is known now that those representations simply can no longer be made with a straight face.
Exchange of Emails between Nicholas Johnson and DOE's Brian Quirke
[1] December 6, 2007
Dear Mr. Quirke:
As you are probably aware, there is a great deal of interest here in Iowa regarding the Earthpark application for the remainder of the $50 million Senator Chuck Grassley has made available to David Oman and his associates.
I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate your response.
1. Who (name and email) has the initial DOE responsibility for a judgment as to whether, or not, the conditions of the match have been met?
2. Who (name and email) has the final sign-off responsibility?
3. Because your indicated title is “Office of the Manager – Communications” are you a part of this decision making process, or are you primarily the public and media relations person for the Chicago office?
4. The local press reported that the application was timely filed by Earthpark (sent November 30, and received on December 1). I am assuming this is correct. Is it? It also quoted you as saying that document, and the DOE decisions regarding it, would be available within “a couple of days.” That would have been sometime between last Monday and Wednesday, depending on what days are counted. What is the current status of the decision making process and when do you now expect your decision will be made public?
5. Given the degree of interest in this matter, it would seem to me both more efficient for DOE, and certainly more efficient for citizens and media, if you would be willing to put the Earthpark document up on the DOE Web site. Agencies, including your own, often do this as you know. While the FOIA enables citizens to file formal requests, and even sue agencies if necessary, to get access to public documents, it certainly does not contemplate that this will be the required process in every case. Question: Are you willing to make the Earthpark application available via the Web (either in the electronic form in which it was provided to the Chicago Office, or if it only came in hard copy, as a scanned document)?
6. Can you refer me to the statutory, or DOE regulatory, directions from Senator Grassley’s office, or other written standards that will be applied by your office in determining whether whatever Earthpark has or has not provided should be considered to constitute a “match”?
Respectfully,
Nicholas Johnson
[2] December 7, 2007
I left a phone message but also decided to follow-up with an e-mail.
Q.1 and 2. The answer to both of these questions is Eric Simpson at eric.simpson@ch.doe.gov. Eric is the contracting officer for the Rainforest/Earthpark project and will be reponsible for signing/not signing the document which would realease federal funds to the project.
In doing this specific task (as is the norm for large projects) Eric has assembled a team of advisors to help ensure that federal acquisitions rules (Federal Acquisition Regulations...FAR) are followed and that the direction DOE received from Congress is complied with, i.e. the grantee has/has not met the congressional requirment to assemble private donors to match the allocated federal funds. This team includes another contracting officer, a project manager, financial experts to determine what is allowable and not allowable, and an attorney.
Q. 3. I am not part of the decision-making process. My role is to communicate to reporters and taxpayers what we are doing and how we are doing it.
Q. 4. Yes, you are right, the local media did report correctly that DOE received the application packet from the grantee by the prescribed deadline. Now we are reviewing each element of the application to determine whether or not it meets the direction we received from Congress and the FAR requirements. Clearly we will be paying special attention to the pledges to determine if they are legally enforceable; and if they are from responsible organizations.
I was accuratly quoted in the Cedar Rapids Gazette by Greg Hennigan (sp?) and then in the following AP story when I indicated we expected the review would take several days. Our position is that we intend to do this job correctly...not attempting to honor a deadline or schedule.
Q. 5. DOE's attorneys who handle FOIA matters are reviewing the documents...in an effort to to determine what to release and when.
We have a pretty good track record of honoring the sentiment you talked about in your e-mail....releasing documents without FOIA requests. Specifically regarding this project, the DOE Chicago Office made available a series of quarterly project management and financial reports (from the Rainforest grantee to DOE) on our website. This was in 2004 when we made available the prior (2003) reports and then continued the practice with reports as they were receieved.
Q. 6. Eric Simpson will be using the two documents mentioned above...the Congressional direction passed by the legislative branch in November 2005 and the FAR to make the decision.
Give me a call if you would like additional ainformation.
Brian
[3] December 7, 2007
Brian Quirke
DOE
Brian:
Thank you very much for the effort to call me, and the relatively prompt email response to my questions.
1. Given your prompt, professional and responsive reply that reflects favorably on you and the DOE – and I presume is actually a public document – I assume you would have no objection to my reporting its contents. But as a courtesy I didn’t want to do that without asking if there would be some reason I’ve overlooked as to why that might be inappropriate. So, is it OK I put it in my blog?
2. On Dec. 4 I quoted from a November 28 AP story as follows: “[Dec. 4] A week ago the Associated Press reported that Department of Energy spokesperson "[Brian] Quirke said a decision on the application could come within a couple of days after it's received." Associated Press, "Deadline for Earthpark matching funds is Saturday," wcco.com/Iowa Wire, November 28, 2007.” In your email to me you said you had indicated it would be within “several days.” It’s a minor point in some ways (and not in others), but did the AP story misquote you? Did you in fact say DOE would act within “a couple of days”? I don’t want to attribute that to you if it is not correct.
3. You have pointed me toward, “(Federal Acquisition Regulations...FAR) . . . and . . . the direction DOE received from Congress” in response to my question 6 (Can you refer me to the statutory, or DOE regulatory, or directions from Senator Grassley’s office, or other written standards that will be applied by your office in determining whether whatever Earthpark has or has not provided should be considered to constitute a “match”?) for which I thank you. My question wasn’t as clear as it should have been; what I wanted was (a) access to the full text of any relevant documents, (b) including any written, or record of oral, instructions received from Senator Grassley or any member of his staff regarding this matter (i.e., what was intended by “match” and whether the money was intended for construction costs or for any pre-construction expenses (including David Oman’s salary) the projects’ promoters wished to spend it on). What I meant to ask for was simply the citations to the source material (e.g., are the Federal Acquisition Regulations somewhere in the CFR, and if so what is the citation?). What is the citation to “the direction DOE received from Congress”? I can look it up on Westlaw or Lexis, or the Internet, if I have the citations – which I’m assuming are easily at hand for either you or Eric Simpson. If there are specific sections within the FAR that are applicable here, or a focus of your consideration, knowing what they are would also save me a lot of time.
4. Based on my earlier experiences with members of the House and Senate – probably round about the time your grandmother was born – I’m assuming that if Senator Grassley wanted to put a block on this, or delay it for further review, or conclude on his own that what Oman has presented is simply not what Grassley had in mind as constituting a “match,” that he could do that. Is that true? You may not want to express a position on that, but I’d be interested in anything you could tell me on that score.
5. Speaking of source material, I have a vague recollection of years ago looking at some of those reports you mentioned from the project that you all put up on a Web site. Do you happen to have the URL for where that material is? Is that where the document in question will be posted?
6. Although I am aware that there are exceptions to what an agency must make available under FOIA, I cannot offhand (without reviewing the law) think of any that would be applicable in this case. It seems to me that once the application was received by you it was a public record. That being the case, while the DOE may have a legal right to continue to withhold it on a representation that you all are “reviewing the documents...in an effort to to determine what to release and when,” it seems to me the answers to those questions ought to be “everything submitted” and “now.” Can you give me an estimate as to when you think this “review” might be completed? I do think that, in terms of the best interests of DOE, it will look bad if the decision is arrived at and released at a time when the Department is still refusing to make the project’s application public.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Nick
[4] December 14, 2007
[There was no response to my December 7 email; therefore, I wrote again, as follows:]
Dec. 14, 2007
Brian:
I intended to send you the message, below, on Dec. 7, just before leaving town. Given how prompt you were in responding to my earlier email, and the fact I’ve not heard back from you (so far as I know), my guess is that it must not have been sent for some reason (since I sometimes have that problem with my email accounts) – or maybe you were out of town as well. Anyhow, here it is again. I’d welcome your response. If there are any you have good reason for not wanting to answer just let me know that, too. Or if, as before, you’d have a preference for dealing with this in a phone call rather than an email that’s fine; just give me the time that would be the least disruptive for you.
Nick
[This was followed with a copy of my December 7 email.]
[5] December 17, 2007, 11:02 a.m.
I have time right now for a phone conversation if you would like.
Brian
[6] December 17, 2007, 11:03 a.m.
Regarding one of your questions, I did consider our earlier e-mail conversation to be "public" and therefore if you want to post it to your blog I would have no objections.
Brian
[Note: We spoke that afternoon, during the course of which he indicated that a full, written response to my December 7 email would be forthcoming. He also provided some clues, but not full citations, to the source of the directions from Congress (Senator Grassley) and the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the $50 million earmark grant.]
# # #
October 29, 2007, 7:00 a.m., 12:15 p.m.
"It's a Possible Maybe"
[Prelude disclaimer: To remove any possible ambiguity, this blog entry is not "about" any given individual. Every adult who has lived in the Iowa City area over the past 30 years -- including myself -- bears some responsibility for the circumstance in which we now find ourselves, whether because of apathy, sense of powerlessness, fear of bar owners' political and economic power, failure to act when they had the power and responsibility to do so, other priorities, support of City Council members who have refused to act (or affirmatively supported bar owners), and so forth.]
I think the supporters of the "10:00 p.m. drinking break" ordinance are using the wrong strategy.
You can't win the votes of underage binge drinkers with an argument as to why underage drinkers should comply with the law. After all, their ability to outsmart the Iowa Legislature and Iowa City Police is as much of the appeal of binge drinking as the joy of passing out in your own vomit.
So I've published in this morning's (October 29) Daily Iowan a Letter to the Editor setting forth the argument as to why a dedicated binge drinker should vote for the ordinance.
It recognizes, as I must, that an ability to violate the law only 20/7 instead of 24/7 is indeed a restriction on one's consumption of alcohol.
But I point out that underage binge drinkers' alcohol consumption is only possible because of the "cowardice, irresponsibility and stupidity" of the adults who support, or refuse to do anything meaningful about, underage students binge drinking: "powerful bar owners, a UI administration on both sides of the issue, a self-censored faculty, and a City Council that refuses to vote."
The point is that underage binge drinkers can't count on those supportive adults always being there -- especially now that the University of Iowa is beginning to get the kind of "disdain and ridicule associated with the indoor rain forest" -- adverse publicity being the primary driving force in administrative decision making.
Have you noted the hypocrisy?
(1) When it comes to the issue of bringing weapons onto the campus in the form of arming campus police with handguns it is suggested that this is desirable because (a) the police advise it would be a good thing to do, and (b) "everybody's doing it" on other Big Ten campuses.
(2) But when it comes to taking a position on binge drinking, while there is rhetoric (as there has been for decades) there is absolutely no meaningful action proposed or taken, notwithstanding that (a) the police advise it would be good to support this proposed ordinance, and (b) what "everybody's doing" -- virtually all Big Ten campuses, as well as our own sister Regents' university in Ames, Iowa State -- is to go well beyond our "10:00 p.m. drinking break" ordinance, and use the common sense, no-brainer approach of banning the entry into bars of those who cannot legally engage in the activity that profits the owners of those establishments.
This kind of all-too-typical administrative behavior always reminds me of a wonderful scene from the feature film, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," loosely based on an establishment outside of Austin, Texas, many years ago called "The Chicken Ranch." The Texas Governor is under great political pressure from both sides, as you might imagine. Is he going to do anything about it? As one reporter sizes up the Governor's statement: "It's a possible 'maybe.'" Following which the Governor . . . oh, but wait. I don't want to spoil it.
Read the Letter to the Editor, below, and then, below that, you'll find a one-minute, fair use clip from the movie you can watch for yourself. Finally, later there will be references to some of the additional stories about Iowa City's forthcoming (November 6) election and referendum on the ordinance.
Binge Drinkers for the Ordinance
Nicholas Johnson
October 29, 2007
Binge drinker? Your smartest strategy may be to vote for the 10:00 p.m. ordinance.
This isn’t the “21-only” advertised. Actually, it’s one sweet deal for underage drinkers.
Want to see 21-only? Visit Ames. That’s the way to prevent underage drinking in bars. Keep underage patrons out of bars. Binge drinking’s down. House parties? Sure, but Ames’ common sense controls work for all – including underage drinkers -- as they would here.
That’s “21-only.”
If you were negotiating with some real 21-only folks and they offered you a compromise – “drink ‘til ten, wait, start again” -- you’d be a fool not to take it.
Binge drinking students are blessed with powerful bar owners, a UI administration on both sides of the issue, a self-censored faculty, and a City Council that refuses to vote. But you can’t count on the continuation of such cowardice, irresponsibility and stupidity.
The Iowa City and campus police chiefs, given the impossible task of enforcing the law, support the ordinance. But as everyone knows, given clever students and irresponsible bar owners, anyone smart enough to be admitted to the University can figure out how to drink in bars.
Ultimately, even administrators willing to ignore problems will respond to publicity. The consequences of Iowa City’s serious binge drinking are increasingly bringing the University the kind of national disdain and ridicule associated with the indoor rain forest.
Reject this ordinance and even Iowa City could respond like sensible communities with a real “21-only.” Illegal drinking only 20/7 instead of 24/7 is a restriction. But unless you’re not macho enough to get blotto by 10, isn’t it a whole lot better than not drinking at all?
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
Nicholas Johnson, "Binge Drinkers for 21-Ordinance," The Daily Iowan, October 29, 2007.
The following one-minute fair use clip is from the delightful 1982 R-rated full-length musical comedy, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," staring Burt Reynolds and Dolly Parton, among a great many other accomplished and well-known actors, and still available for rental and sale. It's based on a true story of a brothel outside LaGrange, Texas, that was ultimately closed down in 1973, following the work of investigative reporter Marvin Zindler of KTRK-TV, Houston. The writing was done by Larry King (whom I remember from Austin in the 1950s), the Governor was played by Charles Durning, and the studio was RKO Pictures. The film is copyright by, presumably, RKO. The use of this very brief clip is for non-commercial, educational and commentary fair use purposes only. Any other use may require the permission of the copyright owner.
Additional stories and commentary from others regarding Iowa City's proposed "10:00 p.m. drinking break" ordinance:
[As a concession to the shortness of life, I have not provided individual links for each story. They can be found at the publications' Web sites, by way of a Google search, or in hard copy from libraries or the newspapers in question.]
Starting with the Press-Citizen (not everything, but a reasonable sample from the past week).
October 29: Hieu Pham, "Police Arrest 4 for Assaulting Officers"; Opinion: Duncan Stewart, "Time to Fight for Our Right to Vomit"; Letters: Lane Plugge, "21 Ordinance is the Right Thing to Do"; Louise From, "21 Ordinance Would Not be Effective."
Special Supplement. "Is 21-Only the Answer? On Nov. 6, the Longstanding Controversy Comes to a Vote," October 27, 2007.
p. C2: "Ins and Outs of Iowa City's 21-only Issue"; "Do You Support or Oppose Iowa City's Proposed 21-Only Measure, and Why?"; Key Players in the 21-only Debate [continued on p. C10]"; "Iowa City 21-Only Issue Timeline [continuing on pp. C3, C6, C7 and C10]."
p. C3: Hieu Pham, "Future of 21 Issue 'In the Hands of the Public."
pp. C4-5: "Downtown Iowa City Then . . . & Now" (maps and statistics regarding number of bars and alcohol-related arrests)
p. C6: Lee Hermiston, "Sides Divided on Impact of 21-Only Ordinance; One Thing's Certain: Few Will Go Unaffected"; Lee Hermiston, "Other Iowa City Bars Mostly Indifferent to 21-Only Issue."
p. C7: Rachel Gallegos, "Ames 21-Only Ordinance 'Piece of a Larger Strategy.'"
p. C8: Editorial, "It's Time for City to Vote 'Yes' on 21 After 10 p.m."; Rick Dobyns, "Bar Scene Has Quadrupled"; Jim Clayton, "A Tipping Point on the Iowa City Horizon"; Jay Christensen-Szalanski, "Considering Economic Impact of 21-Only."
p. C9: Tam Bryk, "Not Enough Options Downtown"; Bob Thompson, "21-Only Won't Decrease Drinking"; Andrew Thomas, "Students Must Get Out and Vote"; Letters: Noah Keck, "Ordinance Would Just Move Problem"; Adam Altman, "University Should be Doing More"; Matthew Theobald, "Ordinance Would Improve Downtown"; plus 5 editorial cartoons from "Patton's Pad," all supporting a "No" vote on the ordinance.
October 25: Rachel Gallegos, "Absentee Ballots Up Over 2005," p. A1.
Letters: Brenda M. Cruikshank, "High-Risk Drinking Not Just for Fun"; Saul Lubaroff, "Support Music and Vote No"; Carrie Z. Norton, "Make Iowa City Better, Vote Yes"; Paul Werger, "Article Show Need for 21-Only."
October 24: Kathryn Fiegen, "Professor: What You Put on Your Sign Matters; Campaigns Show Electability with Number of Yard Signs," p. A1.
October 23: Brian Morelli, "With the 21-Only Proposal on the Ballot, Musicians and Music Lovers Ask, 'Is Nov. 6 the Day Live Music Here Dies? Plan's Critics: Music Caught in Crossfire," p. A1; Hieu Pham, "Anti-21-Only Campaign Spending Big," p. A1.
October 22; Letters, p. A9: Kathie Belgum, "Vote Yes to Save, Improve Lives,"; Amy Fletcher, "Critic Worried About Revenues."
October 20. Lee Hermiston, "21-Only to Affect Police; Pass or Fail, Proposal Will Change Law Enforcement; Most Reported Offense in Downtown is Underage Possession of Alcohol," p. A1.
Letters: Sarah Hansen, "21-Only Will Make Iowa City Better"; Christine Allen, "Iowa City Has a Drinking Problem."
[More sources to come later.]
June 4, 2007, 10:20 a.m., 9:00 p.m.
EXTRA: You can bet I'll have plenty to say tomorrow about Search Committee II's inexplicable rejection of Provost Mike Hogan -- whom Search Committee I considered to be one of the four most highly qualified candidates in the entire United States a mere six months ago!!
Rain Forests in Iowa?!
Last Friday I was a little too brief in noting the latest news out of Pella regarding the proposed Iowa Rain Forest Project. Here's what I wrote:
Earthpark, or as State29 calls it, "Earthpork," is back in the news. We've heard virtually nothing for nearly six months from what was once the output of a regular public relations machine. I'm indebted to Brad Franzwa for bringing to my attention that the Pella Town Crier is bringing us up to date. Don't worry, the rain forest in a tulip bed still doesn't yet have a lock on the $50 million they need to pick up Senator Grassley's earmark on their behalf. But they're clearly not throwing in the towel. After all, would you, if a Senator would dangle $50 million in front of you? "What's Happening With the Earthpark Project? Gov. Culver line item vetoes Vision Iowa funds...," Pella Town Crier, May 31, 2007. Governor Culver is pretty much on record opposing the project, and has tightened down the screws a bit on the State money the rain forest promoters were hoping to grab. Jason Clayworth, "Earthpark weathers Culver's rejection; The decision to not increase tourism grant limits won't be fatal, backers say," Des Moines Register, May 31, 2007.
[Nicholas Johnson, "Earthpark" in "UI Held Hostage Day 496 - Rain Forest, Cable, Bars, Search," June 1, 2007.]
I have been tracking this project for six and a half years during which I have created 14 op ed columns, the texts of 15 speeches and other documents, and a 100-plus-page Web site, http://nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/, with links to an uncounted (but probably at least 500) full texts of newspaper articles and other sources. For much of that time the Web site was updated on a weekly basis. Since late last year, as the promoters finally had to settle on Pella after being rejected by numerous Iowa cities up and down Interstate 80 (some more than once), there has been so little information about it that there has been little if anything about which to report or comment.
Although I've characterized myself as "neither booster nor basher" -- since I've mostly just pushed for answers (seldom if ever forthcoming) to what I (and others) view as essential questions -- little of what I've written could be confused with public relations pap on behalf of the project.
The only reason I'm writing now is because David Oman is apparently back again with his tin cup, in search of public money. And after I went back and re-read this morning Jason Clayworth's story in the Register last week, linked above, I realized that many Iowans may have by now forgotten the history of this project.
What follows is not intended to be critical of Clayworth. I assume he is an excellent reporter or he wouldn't be working for the Register. It is more a commentary about what I view as the shortcomings in the treatment of this project by public officials and media alike over the past 10 years.
If you're personally interested in this project, working on it in Pella, or thinking of investing in it one way or another, I really urge you to spend some time with the materials accessible through my rain forest Web site, linked above, before you do. Even ignore my commentary, if you must, but at least familiarize yourself with a balanced assessment from the data and comments of experts.
Many public officials and media have simply accepted project CEO David Oman's assertions and public relations as fact. The depth of their analyses of the issues extends little further than, "This is just the kind of big thinking Iowa needs; anyone opposing this project is an example of what's wrong with Iowans, they're just lacking in vision." There has been little to none of the questioning that any one of them would demand as a matter of course of someone asking them to put their own money into a for-profit venture, or a non-profit community institution.
Some observers question the value of the project regardless of cost. They would oppose it even if some wealthy benefactor offered the $300 million to build it, and a comparably sized endowment to help support its operation. What they've called "a rain forest in a corn field" doesn't make any sense to them. They think the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium, on the banks of the Mississippi River in Dubuque, is more related to and suitable for Iowa. Or a prairie. Or the Living History Farms near Des Moines. Or the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in his home town of West Branch.
Others have expressed concern about the negative environmental impact of keeping such a structure cooled in the summer and heated in the winter.
These are largely matters of personal values and choice -- although a meaningful local tie apparently does tend to contribute to the economic success of attractions.
But matters of personal taste have not been my primary focus. I've been more concerned with what might be called the basic, Business 101, factors.
To the extent the media has expressed any apprehension about this project at all it has focused on the ability of its promoters to raise the construction funds. Given that they have not raised one dime in 10 years of trying, that is not an insignificant issue.
However, the media tends to accept and repeat what is now described as the project's $155 (or $150) million price tag. But the project's own consultants told the promoters early on that the only way it would have a prayer of making it would be if it could legitimately market itself as "the world's largest." That's when it was a $300 million project, cut to $225 million, and the promoters, unable to raise money, wanted to lower their sights further.
Given the promoters' demonstrated, decade-long failure at fund raising, it is certainly not going to be a "slam dunk" for them to raise the $50 million necessary to match, and thereby get access to, the $50 million earmark Senator Grassley slipped through the Senate for them -- especially by the December 2007 drop dead date.
Moreover, once they get the $50 million, plus Senator Grassley's $50 million, where is the additional $50 million (or $125 million, if the consultants are to be believed) going to come from?
But as difficult as raising the construction money may be, it is as child's play compared with figuring out how the operation will be sustained.
For starters, the conception has been shifting over the past decade -- K-5 school, world class research facility, IMAX theater, indoor jungle overnight camp ground, teacher training institution, corporate products display showcase, tourist facility, potted trees on plastic stumps vs. real trees, with animals vs. without, and so forth. So it's never been totally clear exactly what it is we're talking about.
If and when one figures out just what all this "vision" truly envisions, you're then left with the need for a business plan. What is a realistic projection of operating costs -- which, of course, are wildly different based on what is going on inside that shell? Once that's determined, one can then address the question of where that cash flow is coming from, and just how realistic those income projections are.
For example, if it is to be a tourist facility, most projections of needed revenue would require that every Iowan -- from new born babes to the terminally ill elderly -- visit the rain forest and pay the full admission price every two years for the entirety of their lives. Call me a pessimist if you must, but that seems to me a little unrealistic.
There are dozens more concerns laid out and addressed on my rain forest Web site, linked above, that I won't take the time and space to repeat here.
Based on these kinds of concerns, here are some quotes from Jason Clayworth's story that I would think might require some balance:
"a proposed $155 million environmental attraction,"
"Gov. Chet Culver's veto of legislation to extend a tourism grant program is not a death blow,"
"an interactive environmental museum-like attraction with a 12-story Amazon-style rain forest, a 575,000-gallon aquarium and an environmental and ecological educational center,"
"Earthpark has obtained a $50 million federal grant,"
"'There are many combinations of sources that could unlock the federal grant, and we're working on those fronts,' Oman said,"
"The project will attract a million visitors a year, create 760 jobs and have an annual economic impact of $140 million,"
"Advocates had also hoped to apply, in partnership with the city of Pella, for grants from Iowa's Community Attraction and Tourism program, totalling between $25 million and $35 million,"
"Sen. Dennis Black, a Grinnell Democrat who is a board member of Earthpark, said the veto . . . has not killed the Pella-area project. Advocates will seek private contributions and other public grants," and
"Earthpark is modeled after the Eden Project in Cornwall, England, which attracted more than 8 million visitors in the past five years."
The Pella Town Crier News (linked above), by contrast, quotes Mike Nardini, Pella City Administrator, as saying "There has been nothing submitted to the city, no formal application, no formal commitments on the part of the city." The project is "still in the state funding process. . . . If the project receives Vision Iowa money and continues to move forward, then the city will go through the normal process it would with any other development project."
The Town Crier continues, "He suggested there would be zoning issues, the subdivision process, site plan review - all public processes, open for public attendance. He reiterated that there has been no financial commitment on the part of the city. 'Once the project moves forward, the city will explore all options, just as it would for any project. Any additional costs generated by the development will be paid for by the developers and by the revenue generated by the project itself.'"
And apparently even the $155 million has now been reduced to $150 million and is going to be stretched to cover a lot more than construction: "With a price tag of $150 million (which includes building, furnishing, hiring, training and populating the project), raising capital continues . . .."
It provides a little different view of the situation than the Register's story, doesn't it?
Anyhow, since this project is once again rearing its head, and its promoters will obviously be desperate in their efforts to beg, borrow or steal $50 million from somewhere during the next six months, I'm just reminding any who may be approached -- and who are reading this blog entry -- that there is information you need to read, and that is freely available to you, at http://nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/.
You may very well come to other conclusions than I have after reading what's out there. Or you may conclude my questions and concerns have been long since resolved -- at least to your satisfaction. But whatever you decide, better an hour or two of getting informed now than limiting yourself to public relations assertions, and the enthusiasm of boosters, only to regret your loss of money later.
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
June 1, 2007, 7:25 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 3:45 p.m.
EXTRA: Brian Morelli, "UI president finalists to visit June 11-15," Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, June 1, 2007, 1:52 p.m.:The finalists for the University of Iowa presidency will visit campus, one each day, from June 11-15, the presidential search committee said today.
The candidates won’t be revealed until they are on campus. They will come into town the night before and have dinner at the president’s mansion. The following day, candidates will tour campus.
A public forum will be held each day from 3:45 to 4:45 p.m. in the Old Capitol Senate Chambers, during which the public will be able to ask questions of the candidate.
And see, Diane Heldt, "Five Will Vie for UI President," The Gazette Online, June 1, 2007, 7:33 a.m.
# # #
Lots of topics today. We'll start with the summaries and links and maybe add some comments as the day's schedule permits.
Earthpark, or as State29 calls it, "Earthpork," is back in the news. We've heard virtually nothing for nearly six months from what was once the output of a regular public relations machine. I'm indebted to Brad Franzwa for bringing to my attention that the Pella Town Crier is bringing us up to date. Don't worry, the rain forest in a tulip bed still doesn't yet have a lock on the $50 million they need to pick up Senator Grassley's earmark on their behalf. But they're clearly not throwing in the towel. After all, would you, if a Senator would dangle $50 million in front of you? "What's Happening With the Earthpark Project? Gov. Culver line item vetoes Vision Iowa funds...," Pella Town Crier, May 31, 2007. Governor Culver is pretty much on record opposing the project, and has tightened down the screws a bit on the State money the rain forest promoters were hoping to grab. Jason Clayworth, "Earthpark weathers Culver's rejection; The decision to not increase tourism grant limits won't be fatal, backers say," Des Moines Register, May 31, 2007.
Cable. But "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." At a time when Governor Culver was demonstrating his ability to veto bills contrary to the public interest, I am deeply disappointed that he chose to sign the "Qwest corporate welfare, tilt the playing field, and screw the consumer cable bill." I appreciate that it's not easy to stand up to your Party's legislative leadership after a major corporation has spread $165,000 over the Legislature. But really, Governor! What a God awful bill to put your name to! Nor am I alone; virtually every city government in the State opposed this bill -- and for good reasons that will soon become obvious to Iowa's cable subscribers. The Governor may end up paying a significant political price for his signature on that one. But only time will tell. He has, so far, been quite successful in damping down any media coverage of his Qwest for support.
Here' are the Sioux City Journal's story on his signing, and my take on the issues in an op ed I wrote for the Des Moines Register: Dan Gearino, "Culver signs cable television expansion bill; Governor vetoes Missouri River panel changes," Sioux City Journal, May 30, 2007;
Nicholas Johnson, "Rein in prices by keeping tough local regulation," Des Moines Register, April 12, 2007.
Bars. The fight is on, literally as well as figuratively, over the future of Iowa City's bar culture. There were a number of comments on yesterday's blog entry about the subject, all well worth reading. And last evening the City Council addressed the issues. Lee Hermiston, "Council sounds off on 21-only; Councilors, bar owners have mixed thoughts on ordinance," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 1, 2007, p. A1. As predicted, the City Council stayed true to form vis-a-vis the influential bar owners, and courageously voted: "Let's you and him fight; we'll hold your coats; and so long as the citizens of Iowa City are going to vote anyway I guess we don't have to."
But as if there weren't enough bar fights already, one local bar is using unregulated fights among amateurs as an added lure to potential profits; just a little "boys-will-be-boys" entertainment for their drunken patrons. Hieu Pham, "City May Knock Out Fight Night," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 1, 2007, p. A1; Gregg Hennigan, "I.C. Council to Discuss Fight Nights; City Attorney Favors Total Ban Rather Than Regulating Contests," The Gazette, June 1, 2007, p. B1.
Hieu Pham's story contains this report: "City attorney Eleanor Dilkes has advised council members that a total ban of amateur fighting in businesses with alcohol licenses is preferable to regulation. An attempt to regulate is more complicated, requiring physicals, referees and other components, she said."
That's a good point. But with all respect to the City Council, isn't it an equally valid argument with regard to enforcing the 21-and-older-only law as well? That is, to paraphrase, "a total ban of underage patrons in businesses with alcohol licenses is preferable to regulation. An attempt to regulate is more complicated . . .."
As State29 writes today, as he continues his support of lowering the drinking age to 18, but notes: "I don't understand the idea of allowing people under the age of 21 into a bar and then kicking them out at 10pm. That seems like a really weird compromise and a large part of the problem." State29, "Let's Treat 20 Year Old Adults Like the Children They Really Are," June 1, 2007. Amen to that.
I really don't want to churn up all the old arguments all over again, but I will address one. A standard argument put forward by the pro-bar lobby is that if you were to enforce the law in an administratively feasible way (namely, by keeping those too young to legally drink out of establishments the primary purpose of which is to sell alcohol) they will just do even more dangerous drinking elsewhere. I have essentially two responses.
(1) A legal system requires that you either enforce laws or repeal them. Otherwise ordered liberty erodes. Why not argue: (a) You shouldn't forbid kids to bring knives and guns to school. As long as they're in school you can keep an eye on them. Forbid them to bring weapons to school and you'll just force them into drive-by shootings in the residential neighborhoods. Or (b), to use another school example: "Don't force those who like to speed to slow down to 15 mph in school zones. That's ridiculously slow, and besides, it will just encourage speeders to drive even faster elsewhere."
(2) Mick Starcevich has been one of Iowa's most competent and creative educational administrators. Now President of Kirkwood Community College, when he was Superintendent of the College Community District he kept a sign on his wall: "In God we trust. All others bring data." I have not seen -- but would like to, and would certainly take into account -- data from other college towns regarding this issue. It would need to be data from professionals not on the alcohol industry's payroll. There is, after all, a lot of money to be made from alcohol abusers and underage binge drinkers, and individuals can be found who will let their data be molded by money. Have there been other college towns with underage drinking in bars and residential areas, where the law was suddenly effectively enforced in bars, and data is available as to what that did to residential drinking? Not just the one best, or worst, case (depending on your point of view), but all the data. What was done next; what have proven to be the best practices for minimizing the adverse consequences of underage drinking (regardless of where it occurs)? I assume such data is available -- it may even be known by individuals in Iowa City (both the pro-bar and 21-only crowds).
Such data doesn't address the need to retain respect for law, but it would add a lot more to a reasoned dialogue about a major social problem than mere assertions and opinions.
UI President Search. Search Committee II is continuing to dole out little scraps of information with the skill of David Oman promoting the rain forest. Brian Morelli, "UI Interview Dates Coming," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 1, 2007, p. A3; Erin Jordan, "Panel to Say Today When Candidates Will Visit U of I," Des Moines Register, June 1, 2007. We have now been promised that we won't know today when candidates will be coming, whether they will all be in and out of here in a week or longer, how many there will be, who they will be, whether they will all be recommended to the Regents, or whether additional persons may be. All we will know for sure is that (a) some of the candidates have agreed to suffer the incredible harm to their reputations as a result of their names being made public, and their colleagues coming to know that they have agreed to actually being considered as a possible president of the University of Iowa, and (b) that we will have but 24 hours to contact all the people we know in the world who might possibly have anything to tell us that would be useful in evaluating their candidacy.
____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa
# # #
May 1, 2007, 10:00 a.m., 11:40 a.m., 3:20 p.m.
"The Regents are Coming, The Regents Are Coming; May Day! May Day!"; "Keeping Both Hands on the Road;" "Cream Pies in the Eye and a 'Hats Off;'" and "Iowa Boys Can't Jump"
The Regents are Coming, The Regents Are Coming; May Day! May Day!
The Regents are meeting in Iowa City today (May 1). This is May Day.
See, Brian Morelli, "Regents Hold Off on Security Discussion," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007, updated 10:08 a.m.; Brian Morelli, "UI Wants to Build New Hospital," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007, updated 10:32 a.m.; Diane Heldt, "Regents Want UI Future Plan," Gazette Online, May 1, 2007, 12:04 p.m. ("Members of the state Board of Regents want more details about the University of Iowa's long-term vision for expanding University Hospitals at sites other than its main campus"); Diane Heldt, "Regents OK UI Hospital Rate Hike," Gazette Online, May 1, 2007, 12:42 p.m. (6% hike in rates; $840 million annual budget, up from $805.2 million); Erin Jordan, "Regents Begin Campus Security Study," Des Moines Register, May1, 2007, 1:19 p.m.; Diane Heldt, "Regents select president pro tem," Gazette Online, May 1, 2007, 2:09 p.m. (David Miles; West Des Moines; CFO Countryside Renewable Energy, Inc.).
Meanwhile, the costs of UI Presidential Search I are still going up on this, Day 465 of the "UI Held Hostage." Erin Jordan, "Failed U of I hunt for new president cost $233,000," Des Moines Register, April 30, 2007
Keeping Both Hands on the Road
And speaking of the Regents, and an earlier concern of mine, the Press-Citizen has come out swinging on the issue of free speech for faculty. Editorial, "Don't Infringe Upon Freedom of Speech for UI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007.
It involves some language before the Regents today, for possible inclusion as a Regents' policy. The language comes from a 1940 policy statement of the American Association of University professors, and provides that statements by faculty members in their independent capacity as citizens, "should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, [and] show respect for the opinions of others."
As the Press-Citizen editorializes,It's all well and good if a group like the American Association of University Professors offers a vaguely written policy for defining proper academic behavior. In fact, as a statement of general principles, the proposed policy provides a good model for academics to strive for. But there's a big difference between a professional group offering advice and the regents hard-wiring such advice into a policy that could be used punitively against faculty and staff.
That was essentially the conclusion I came to in Nicholas Johnson, "King Michael and Sedition" in "UI Held Hostage Day 459 - King Michael & Sedition," April 25, 2007.
(As an example of the kinds of self-censorship that can occur under such vague but intimidating standards, see, Diane Heldt, "Obama photo taken off UI Web site," The Gazette, May 1, 2007, p. 5B. ("The picture on the Communication Studies department Web site showed Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, during a recent campaign visit to the UI campus. He was holding the infant son of a graduate student in the department."))
The remainder of that AAUP sentence I have no trouble with: "make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution." In fact, every entry in this blog carries the notice:Personal ViewThis blog is neither affiliated with the University of Iowa nor hosted by it. It is maintained by me in my individual capacity. Nothing posted here should be construed as anything other than the personal views of the author.
The only part of the Press-Citizen's editorial that gave me any pause at all was its analogy.When you teach a child to drive, you often suggest that she keep both hands on the road. That's good advice, but no one would want such advice to be enforceable as law because then no one could change a radio station or even shift gears when necessary.
Actually, I once knew someone who occasionally had to keep one hand on the road.
I mentioned Kathleen Nolan in a blog entry recently in connection with the death of Jack Valenti and the power of celebrity in Washington. One of the shows she was in was a "Charlie's Angels" two-hour special filmed in Vail, Colorado. In addition to providing me a couple weeks of free ski instruction and skiing, and visits with the Angels, it was also an opportunity for visiting with one of Hollywood's only woman stunt coordinators who I'll call "Julie." Whenever I've been with stunt people I've never been able to resist asking them about their experiences, and "How do you do that?" Julie described a number of hair-raising (for me, apparently not for her) "gags" in which she'd participated. One involved being pushed out of a fast moving car onto the pavement. "What happens?" I asked. "You lose the skin on the palms of your hands," she replied.
"What do you do after that if they need to film another take?" I asked. "You get back in the car and do it all over again," she answered.
(It kind of reminded me of Gordon Liddy's explanation for how he could hold his hand in a candle flame. "What's the trick?" he was asked. "The trick," he replied, "is not to care.")
Anyhow, that's what I know about driving with one hand on the road.
I once had a car with the floor so rusted out that the mechanic refused to work on it any more, pointing out to me that I was risking another part of my anatomy being on the road.
But I've never driven with both hands on the road. And the one thing I can agree with the editorial about is that "no one would want such advice to be enforceable as law because then no one could change a radio station or even shift gears when necessary."
I would guess that, with both hands on the road, one would need to steer with both knees on the steering wheel.
You know, when I was a kid I wouldn't have wanted to even try to ride a tricycle with both hands on the road. Anyhow, I agree that I'm sure glad we don't have a law that requires us to drive with both hands on the road.
Economic Development: Cream Pies in the Eye, and a "Hats Off"
There seems to be no limit to the willingness of public officials -- federal, state and local -- to fund corporate welfare with taxpayers' money to for-profit ventures. Sadly, few journalists are given the time and support to track down the relationship of these gifts of our money and the "campaign contributions" the grateful welfare beneficiaries return to those officials. There's little space given to the follow-up stories: What did the taxpayers actually receive for their gift -- not what was promised, but what really happened? The dissenting voices of economists who report that much of this public money is either wasted or unnecessary (the development could and would have happened without it -- and, if not, probably didn't represent a good investment for public money) gets lost in the cacophony of the cheerleaders and boosters. At best, corporate welfare is a distortion of market forces and unfair to those businesses that must complete without taxpayer support.
Yesterday I wrote about Earthpark (or "Earthpork" as State29 calls it) in this context. (And see his highlighting, today, "The Best Lake Red Rock Earthpork Letter Yet," May 1, 2007.)
Here are a couple more examples from this morning's papers, along with a "hats off" to a project that demonstrates how it ought to be done.
The Iowa Department of Economic Development gave NGI $655,000 in direct state assistance and grants and $1.1 million in state community college job training assistance. Coralville pledged $800,000 in tax increment financing. State economic development funds also will help build the Bioventures Center.
* * *
In October, the Iowa City Council approved $1.2 million in tax increment financing for the project.
There's no mention of whether this operation will be paying property taxes (since it's on what may be UI land) and how much additional subsidy that provides, nor is it made clear why -- if the State wants to put money into such a private venture -- it needs to drag the UI into the operation as a landlord for future for-profit ventures in the building. Kathryn Fiegen, "Construction begins on $20M research facility," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007.
Meanwhile, after for-profit businesses get this kind of support, those that still need to pay something in property taxes bring their law firms and other resources to bear in beating down the taxes they owe. Dick Hogan, "Collins' tax bill cut by $488,474; Compromise reduces assessed valuation by $13.6 million," The Gazette, May 1, 2007, p. 1A.
Coralville's Coral Ridge Mall, which was generously treated by the City, is now playing the same game.
One county official said that while he has no problem with businesses appealing assessments, he finds this particular situation frustrating because, as he put it, "all that public money went into the mall."
Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan said on Wednesday that General Growth has benefited from tax-increment financing and the creation of public roads so shoppers can access the complex.
"Everything has been provided for it … and it turns around, and it decides it's not going to pay the taxes it owes," Sullivan said.
He believes that the tax revenue could aid Coralville, saying in his weekly constituent e-mail that it could fund the annual salaries of nearly 20 police officers.
"A million dollars could do a lot," Sullivan said.
Colin Burke, "County, Coral Ridge in tax tiff," The Daily Iowan, April 26, 2007.
Now we're all out of cream pies, and it's time for our "hats off" -- to Kathie and the late David Belgum, the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the "group of Johnson County residents [that] is raising money to renovate 40 acres of prairie land near Hills" -- the 40 acres known as "Belgum Grove." The plans include a restoration of the Grove's prairie grass, the development of a wetland habitat and savannah environment, trails, and an educational area -- an "outdoor classroom." Dirty Face Creek (which runs through the property), the apple orchard, oak, hickory, and white pine groves will also be enhanced.
Note the differences between the Earthpark and Belgum Grove projects.
* Doing Earthpark properly would require $200 million (plus an ongoing subsidy for operations). The Grove will cost $65,000.
* Earthpark was rejected by city after city in Iowa. The Grove already has significant local support.
* Earthpark has raised not one private dime beyond founder Ted Townsend's early pledge. The Grove already has $40,000 of the $65,000 it will need.
* Earthpark would offer an artificial re-creation of an alien environment: a tropical rain forest. The Grove will enhance a natural Iowa environment.
* Earthpark plans to barge the tropical trees up the Mississippi River. The Grove's trees and plants are already here.
* Earthpark would have to be cooled in summer and heated in winter. The Grove has contracted out climate control, at no charge, to the forces of nature.
* Visitors to Earthpark would be charged (at least) $15 each. Visitors to Belgum Grove can see it for free (I assume).
And that's why the project gets our "Iowa Attractions and Economic Development" hats off award of the day. Rob Daniel, "Trust hopes to renovate prairie; Refurbishing grove will cost $65,000," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007.
Iowa Boys Can't Jump
Unless I'm misreading it, the Iowa basketball team roster for 2006-07 listed only one non-senior player from Iowa of the 12 listed (red-shirted freshman guard Don Bohall). Lickliter's three new "letter of intent" recruits are from Maryland, Missouri and Indiana. Having apparently run out of potential players from the U.S., Lickliter is now going after one from Moscow, Russia. What's the matter? "Iowa Boys Can't Jump"?
It's one thing not to be able to find anyone from western Iowa to serve on the Board of Regents, but it's something else to confess that we can't we find anyone from anywhere in Iowa who can play basketball.
Why don't we just call them "the American Hawkeyes" -- soon to be "the Global Hawkeyes" if we can sign than Russian?
The phenomenon of fan passion and loyalty to such teams has always befuddled me -- especially for the pro teams. They shake down the local taxpayers to build a $100 million or more local stadium for some billionaire who owns a team of millionaires, often none of whom come from the city in question. The team's loyalty to the city only lasts until the billionaire gets a better deal -- someone who will buy and move the team, or some city willing to build an even grander stadium or arena. And yet the fans support the billionaire, and his millionaire players, with their money, passion, and loyalty. They pay outrageous prices for tickets, parking, hot dogs and beer. They go out to the airport to greet them on their return from distant fields and courts. They get drunk and riot in the streets when there are major victories or defeats. They will get in fist fights with the loyal fans of other corporate teams.
Loyalty to college teams is a little easier to understand -- especially if the fan is a student, or graduate, or employee of the school. After all, the players are students at the college -- even if only until they get an NBA bid.
Don't get me wrong. I'll be cheering for the American Hawkeyes myself. I just wish we could find an Iowa boy who could jump.
Pat Harty, "Lickliter looks to bolster roster," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2007
_____________
UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search,
Nicholas Johnson,
FromDC2Iowa_______________Nicholas Johnson's Main Web Site http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/
Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site
Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
Nicholas Johnson's Blog Index
_______________
